Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-12-22 Thread John Harrison
On 12/22/2021 14:35, Matthew Brost wrote: A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for execlists - basically just passing submit fences between each request generated and virtual engines are not

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-12-22 Thread Matthew Brost
A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for execlists - basically just passing submit fences between each request generated and virtual engines are not allowed. This is on par with what is there for

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-12-22 Thread Matthew Brost
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 12:01:04PM -0800, John Harrison wrote: > On 11/11/2021 13:20, Matthew Brost wrote: > > A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for > > execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for > > execlists - basically just passing

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-12-06 Thread John Harrison
On 11/11/2021 13:20, Matthew Brost wrote: A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for execlists - basically just passing submit fences between each request generated and virtual engines are not

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-11-15 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 12/11/2021 17:59, Matthew Brost wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 02:13:50PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 11/11/2021 16:49, Matthew Brost wrote: On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:35:09AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 27/10/2021 21:10, Matthew Brost wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:04:49PM

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-11-12 Thread Matthew Brost
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 02:13:50PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 11/11/2021 16:49, Matthew Brost wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:35:09AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > On 27/10/2021 21:10, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:04:49PM -0700, John Harrison

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-11-12 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 11/11/2021 16:49, Matthew Brost wrote: On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:35:09AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 27/10/2021 21:10, Matthew Brost wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:04:49PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: On 10/27/2021 12:17, Matthew Brost wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:00PM

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-11-11 Thread Matthew Brost
A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for execlists - basically just passing submit fences between each request generated and virtual engines are not allowed. This is on par with what is there for

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-11-11 Thread Matthew Brost
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:35:09AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 27/10/2021 21:10, Matthew Brost wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:04:49PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > > > On 10/27/2021 12:17, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-11-01 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 27/10/2021 21:10, Matthew Brost wrote: On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:04:49PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: On 10/27/2021 12:17, Matthew Brost wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: On 10/20/2021 14:47, Matthew Brost wrote: A weak implementation of parallel

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-10-27 Thread Matthew Brost
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:04:49PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > On 10/27/2021 12:17, Matthew Brost wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > > > On 10/20/2021 14:47, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-10-27 Thread John Harrison
On 10/27/2021 12:17, Matthew Brost wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: On 10/20/2021 14:47, Matthew Brost wrote: A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-10-27 Thread Matthew Brost
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > On 10/20/2021 14:47, Matthew Brost wrote: > > A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for > > execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for > > execlists - basically just passing

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-10-26 Thread John Harrison
On 10/20/2021 14:47, Matthew Brost wrote: A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for execlists - basically just passing submit fences between each request generated and virtual engines are not

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists

2021-10-20 Thread Matthew Brost
A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for execlists - basically just passing submit fences between each request generated and virtual engines are not allowed. This is on par with what is there for